I am not an education policy wonk: Iím just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldnít be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)

So, how would this work exactly? Itís simple! Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment. Your local school stinks but you donít send your child there? Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract. Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.

There's some serious mask slippage going on there.

What do you mean by mask slippage?

The leftist position on continuing to pour ever increasing amounts of other people's money into a school system that hasn't shown any positive trend as a result was supposed to be for the benefit of the children attending them. This particular person (and, yes, it's just one person's opinion) seems to acknowledge that, well, no, it's actually going to benefit some far off generation some unknown number of years hence and the kids currently there will just have to deal with whatever mediocre results they'll get now. Hell, everyone currently on the planet may well be dead by the time the school system spontaneously, magically, improves despite there being no actual consequences for failing to do so (remember, everyone just has to keeping sending their kids there no matter what and any failure on the school system's part will just be assumed to be a result of lack a of money/resources, etc.), but by golly that's just what has to be done. You know, for the childre-- er, the grandchil--- well, for some as-yet-unborn people in the distant future.

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2416Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:06 pm Post subject:

ShadowCell wrote:

clever! once the Republicans scuttle any action on Syria because Black Guy in White House, Obama can throw up his hands and avoid having to do anything at all about Syria and getting involved in a Warhammer 40K-esque clusterfuck.

Never underestimate the power of the Republican warboner. There are enough John McCains and Peter Kings still in office to supplement the Democrats who will vote for anything Obama wants.

On the other: The UN stated that the purpose of the UN team was "not to point blame or state who was at fault" for a chemical attack, but just to determine whether or not a chemical attack had happened.

.. WHY they care whether or not a chem attack happened when they won't 'point blame' is a mystery to me, BUT HEY. I guess it's so we can go "Yup, using chemical weapons on his civilians. DAmn. How terrible. I wish someone who isn't us would do something about that!"

well, we all remember how it went the last time the US ran onto the world stage screaming about WMDs and the necessity of military intervention...

Well, yes. But in that case, the UN didn't find any chemical weapon use.

I admit I'm just sort of confused by the UN position that it isn't their point to *assign blame* to the use of chemical weapons *ON CIVILIAN POPULATIONS*, just, you know, to figure out if they were used.

It's sort of like a police officer going "Oh, we don't care WHO committed the murder, we just need to see if a murder happened, you know?"

But yes, I am well aware how the Iraq clusterfark has severly limited out ability to actually deal with the eventuality of someone *actually* using chemical weapons on civilians._________________"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger

The sad part is going to be the ridiculous number of people who are going to believe this as fact._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

I am not an education policy wonk: Iím just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldnít be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)

So, how would this work exactly? Itís simple! Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment. Your local school stinks but you donít send your child there? Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract. Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.

There's some serious mask slippage going on there.

What do you mean by mask slippage?

The leftist position on continuing to pour ever increasing amounts of other people's money into a school system that hasn't shown any positive trend as a result was supposed to be for the benefit of the children attending them. This particular person (and, yes, it's just one person's opinion) seems to acknowledge that, well, no, it's actually going to benefit some far off generation some unknown number of years hence and the kids currently there will just have to deal with whatever mediocre results they'll get now. Hell, everyone currently on the planet may well be dead by the time the school system spontaneously, magically, improves despite there being no actual consequences for failing to do so (remember, everyone just has to keeping sending their kids there no matter what and any failure on the school system's part will just be assumed to be a result of lack a of money/resources, etc.), but by golly that's just what has to be done. You know, for the childre-- er, the grandchil--- well, for some as-yet-unborn people in the distant future.

I think they had a better point to argue buried deep in the article, which was basically, "We should do as much to fix public education as we do to find private schools for our children to escape public education." But that point is buried in blaming people for wanting to get their kids out of violent situations where they are not receiving an education.

I gave a sad, sad little laugh when the author suggested that parents should just go demand things of the school district, as if every parent has the time and will, and as if every school administration can clearly be moved by such a thing._________________::crisis mode::

I am not an education policy wonk: Iím just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldnít be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)

So, how would this work exactly? Itís simple! Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment. Your local school stinks but you donít send your child there? Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract. Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.

There's some serious mask slippage going on there.

What do you mean by mask slippage?

The leftist position on continuing to pour ever increasing amounts of other people's money into a school system that hasn't shown any positive trend as a result was supposed to be for the benefit of the children attending them. This particular person (and, yes, it's just one person's opinion) seems to acknowledge that, well, no, it's actually going to benefit some far off generation some unknown number of years hence and the kids currently there will just have to deal with whatever mediocre results they'll get now. Hell, everyone currently on the planet may well be dead by the time the school system spontaneously, magically, improves despite there being no actual consequences for failing to do so (remember, everyone just has to keeping sending their kids there no matter what and any failure on the school system's part will just be assumed to be a result of lack a of money/resources, etc.), but by golly that's just what has to be done. You know, for the childre-- er, the grandchil--- well, for some as-yet-unborn people in the distant future.

Reading the rest of the article it seems to suggest that while kids wouldn't benefit from it they also wouldn't be at a disadvantage from it. If you can afford a private school the money that those schools need isn't for your kid. They'll do fine in any school._________________

I gave a sad, sad little laugh when the author suggested that parents should just go demand things of the school district, as if every parent has the time and will, and as if every school administration can clearly be moved by such a thing.

Parents who got the money to send their kids to private school do._________________

Not that it matters. This is a collective action problem like no other. The people with the time and will to fix the school their kid is at are the people who are not going to send their kid to public school. Because a requirement for time and will is money, and with money you can get a private school or at least live in a place where public schools are better._________________

The leftist position on continuing to pour ever increasing amounts of other people's money into a school system that hasn't shown any positive trend as a result was supposed to be for the benefit of the children attending them. This particular person (and, yes, it's just one person's opinion) seems to acknowledge that, well, no, it's actually going to benefit some far off generation some unknown number of years hence and the kids currently there will just have to deal with whatever mediocre results they'll get now. Hell, everyone currently on the planet may well be dead by the time the school system spontaneously, magically, improves despite there being no actual consequences for failing to do so (remember, everyone just has to keeping sending their kids there no matter what and any failure on the school system's part will just be assumed to be a result of lack a of money/resources, etc.), but by golly that's just what has to be done. You know, for the childre-- er, the grandchil--- well, for some as-yet-unborn people in the distant future.

I'd be curious to know where and how this "ever increasing" amount of money is being invested in public education in the U.S
In my experience the exact opposite is happening. Furthermore this has been a sustained attack on teachers and public schools for decades, spearheaded by politicians funded by the very same corporate interests who make a profit from private education and corporate funding of schools. Then these politicians turn around and are shocked, shocked I tell you, that this underfunding has had an effect on the quality of education.

Private schools might work well for those who can afford them, but that's hardly most of us. Actually I'd probably have to take that back because private schools in Sweden has pretty much been one long story of failure. And it might surprise you to know this privatization has gone further than in many other countries. Turns out, running schools for profit and not for education can turn out pretty badly. Who would've thought it? I mean who could've predicted that a for-profit school who feels they are unable to meet their bottom line would bail on students and leave public education to pick up the bill?

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2416Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:04 pm Post subject:

Him wrote:

I'd be curious to know where and how this "ever increasing" amount of money is being invested in public education in the U.S
In my experience the exact opposite is happening. Furthermore this has been a sustained attack on teachers and public schools for decades, spearheaded by politicians funded by the very same corporate interests who make a profit from private education and corporate funding of schools. Then these politicians turn around and are shocked, shocked I tell you, that this underfunding has had an effect on the quality of education.

It has been a 'sustained attack' because per-pupil spending has steadily increased for decades, while student test scores are generally stagnant.

Quote:

Private schools might work well for those who can afford them, but that's hardly most of us. Actually I'd probably have to take that back because private schools in Sweden has pretty much been one long story of failure. And it might surprise you to know this privatization has gone further than in many other countries. Turns out, running schools for profit and not for education can turn out pretty badly. Who would've thought it? I mean who could've predicted that a for-profit school who feels they are unable to meet their bottom line would bail on students and leave public education to pick up the bill?

Given that teachers unions strive to make it difficult to replace underperforming teachers and respond to any indications of poor performance with a demand for more money, I find it curious how you think profit doesn't play a role in the current system.

I'd be curious to know where and how this "ever increasing" amount of money is being invested in public education in the U.S
In my experience the exact opposite is happening. Furthermore this has been a sustained attack on teachers and public schools for decades, spearheaded by politicians funded by the very same corporate interests who make a profit from private education and corporate funding of schools. Then these politicians turn around and are shocked, shocked I tell you, that this underfunding has had an effect on the quality of education.

It has been a 'sustained attack' because per-pupil spending has steadily increased for decades, while student test scores are generally stagnant.

To be fair, academic performance is mostly affected by factors outside of the educational system. And throwing money at the schools isn't going to fix the more fundamental problems with the system anyway (even if we claim that like a hundred bucks extra a year is going to matter).

The original article doesn't say shit about how more money is going to fix education. It's saying that having everyone invested in the system will help fix the system. The public school system doesn't really need more money, it needs policy changes that people support._________________

It says infographic, but I see none, on neither Safari nor Chrome nor Firefox_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake